MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2671707420 · doi:10.7150/thno.19172

Vibrational Profiling of Brain Tumors and Cells

2017· article· en· W2671707420 on OpenAlexaff
Sultan L Nelson, Dustin Proctor, Ahmad Ghasemloonia, Sanju Lama, Kourosh Zareinia, Younghee Ahn, Mustafa R Al-Saiedy, Francis Hy Green, Matthias Amrein, Garnette R. Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueTheranostics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrocytomaMeningiomaHippocampal formationNeocortexMicrophonePathologyBrain tumorBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceBiologyNeuroscienceGliomaMedicineAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study reports vibration profiles of neuronal cells and tissues as well as brain tumor and neocortical specimens. A contact-free method and analysis protocol was designed to convert an atomic force microscope into an ultra-sensitive microphone with capacity to record and listen to live biological samples. A frequency of 3.4 Hz was observed for both cultured rat hippocampal neurons and tissues and vibration could be modulated pharmacologically. Malignant astrocytoma tissue samples obtained from operating room, transported in artificial cerebrospinal fluid, and tested within an hour, vibrated with a much different frequency profile and amplitude, compared to meningioma or lateral temporal cortex providing a quantifiable measurement to accurately distinguish the three tissues in real-time. Vibration signals were converted to audible sound waves by frequency modulation, thus demonstrating, acoustic patterns unique to meningioma, malignant astrocytoma and neocortex.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheranosticsSame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207